Thursday, October 09, 2008

 

At least they're not boring.



Bill O'Reilly: The end of civilization as we know it? Really?

Ed Siegel has a good column in today's Boston Globe. It is called Watching Fox News: Don't Have a Cow, Man. Here is a sample of what Siegel has to say:


"....What do all these [Fox Entertainment & FX] shows have in common with Fox News? One word - attitude.

Fox heroes and antiheroes all exist outside of the establishment, repulsed by conformity, cover-ups, and cowering. Fox News casts itself in the same light with its stable of commentators. And just as Fox Entertainment often shoots various television shows more imaginatively than the networks, Fox News is formalistically different from the rest of the pack, with more energetic graphics, starker close-ups, etc.

And I have to admit that I get a kick out of Bill O'Reilly. I always enjoyed jousting with him when I was a television critic and he was host of a Channel 7 afternoon series, a Channel 5 commentator, and host of "Inside Edition," a syndicated tabloid show. In the Boston days, his former colleagues at Channel 5 laughed at him for his hubris. They would chortle - and I along with them - about his boasting that he would someday replace Chet Curtis as anchor at Channel 5 and, later, Peter Jennings after ABC hired him.
Tom Brokaw: Not as much fun as O'Reilly.
Who's laughing now? Well, I am, the same way I laugh at the Labrador puppy who just relentlessly comes at my 2-year-old dog until she gives up and starts wrestling with him. It's a little bit like watching O'Reilly call Barney Frank a coward until Frank starts to "play" by calling him boorish and saying, "This is why your stupidity gets in the way of a rational discussion."

Great political discourse? No. Entertaining? Very.

Plus, why not have someone who treats politics differently than Tom Brokaw, Jim Lehrer, et al? Without O'Reilly, would Keith Olbermann and Stephen Colbert have their shows?..."

Ed Siegel: The man has a point.


Labels: , , , ,


Comments:
I understand what you're saying; someone who is provocative is more interesting than just the same old platitudes we've all hear-and agree with. BUT, I do not enjoy all the yelling and trying to talk over the guest-it just sounds rude and obnoxious to me. I don't like to watch yelling on TV-and I also don't like to be bored, so I actually just don't watch much TV.
 
Why does saying I'm sorry mean you are accepting blame and responsibility? How do you say I'm sorry to mean just I'm sorry as in I'm sympathetic to your situation. I always say I'm sorry when someone tells me their tale of woe; death, loss of job, leaky roof etc and then the response is often, it's not your fault. I never thought it was my fault-but I'm still sorry. Just wondering...
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?